Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I suspect he was being hard on the organisation, as in he was providing value but just not the kind of value that he wanted to be adding.

It's valuable for middle/upper management to have someone 'technical' in meetings. Often as a sounding board/is this kind of thing possible/how should we do X/can you explain how Y works/explain it to me like I'm 5. You're providing what feels like 'general knowledge', but is actually knowledge/perspective gained over a number of years working on/in technology.

And depending on the industry, you might also be wheeled between projects and end up having the same conversations again and again just with different people.

From a personal perspective it feels like you're not learning anything (and you probably aren't), and it's a waste of your time. Rather than explaining to people the difference between message queues and databases you'd rather be building systems and solving 'hard' problems (either problems that are hard, or not involving 'soft skills' :-)).



view as:

Very insightful; your analysis is spot on! There is also a worryingly large proportion that are well paid but don't add value. Also, a significant subset who don't even fully understand the job they do, and just wing it!

Legal | privacy